DNAunion: In reply to FMAJ's "Re; NS and Intelligent Designers" reply posted
10/16/2000.
>> DNAunion: Yes, but I have already made several posts in reply to FMAJ that
mention you - as he repeatedly mentions you and your conclusions. My basic
claims have been (1) NATURAL selection cannot include intelligence and
design, as per Darwin, and (2) that your conclusions are not necessarily an
accurate representation of Dembski's statements/beliefs.
>>FMAJ: One is irrelevant
>>DNAunion: Yet you asked me to support it? Why would you make me waste my
time on something that is irrelevant? Sounds like a mere tactic to me. In
addition, why did you challenge my statement, repeatedly, if it was
irrelevant? And do you now give up simply because your "superhero" Elseberry
says that I was correct all along? Does Elseberry outrank Darwin on NATURAL
selection?
>>FMAJ: I asked you to support 1) to show that if Dembski's ID cannot
exclude natural selection as an intelligent designer that there must be
something wrong.
DNAunion: Yes, so 1) is relevant. But you stated above that it wasn't?!?!?!
FMAJ again falls prey to self-contradiction.
[…]
> >FMAJ: and (2) remains unsupported.
>>DNAunion: Nothing to support. I did not say Elseberry's representation was
not accurate, I said it is not necessarily accurate. Furthermore, as I have
stated repeatedly, it is up to Elseberry and Dembski to settle the issue as
it is their positions (and others have already misrepresented Dembski's EF).
>>FMAJ: Nothing to support? That's nice. So your assertions are merely
'academic'
DNAunion: I have not stated here that Elseberry is wrong, only that he
*could be* wrong.
[…more hero worship by FMAJ snipped]
>>FMAJ: Care to take on the task to show that it is inaccurate?
>>DNAunion: What, are you unable to understand something even when told 5
times! Or do you just not accept what others say.
>>FMAJ: Not without supporting evidence.
DNAunion: Please tell me why I am required to support my own personal
statement, such as "I will not address the issue"? Are you asking me to find
an article in Science or Nature that states, "DNAunion will not address
Wesley Elseberry's conclusion"? Is that what it would take to satisfy you?
Look, *I* am the ultimate authority on my own views and positions - I am my
own supporting evidence for what I said. Yet you refuse to accept it. Go
figure.
>>FMAJ: But I now understand that you have no supporting evidence that
Wesley's argument is inaccurate.
DNAunion: I also have no supporting evidence that Wesley's argument is
accurate. Get it yet - I don't claim to be informed enough about all aspects
of the issue to address it.
>>DNAunion: And I stated (2) without reading all of your material FMAJ
posted.
> >FMAJ: So you were not aware of the full argument then?
>> DNAunion: Well, we at least know you can read.
>>FMAJ: No need to be upset.
DNAunion: No need to ignore what I have said multiple times either, but you
still do.
>>DNAunion: I based it on simple logic and experience. Many anti-ID
scientists (such as Dave Ussery, and Robison from Talk.Origins) have drawn
their own conclusions of what Behe has said, then shown him to be wrong
> (Ussery showed that bacterial flagella can have fewer proteins that Behe
"claimed", and Robison showed that the TCA cycle is not IC as Behe"claimed").
However, both were not properly representing Behe's statements - apparently
unintentionally - so their conclusions were irrelevant. Those not familiar
with both sides probably took Ussery's orRobison's position as being
conclusive, even though both were in fact flawed.
> >FMAJ: Nice logic. Others were wrong so Wesley could be wrong?
>> DNAunion: Yes, other well-known anti-ID scientists have made incorrect
representations of ID concepts apparently without meaning to, so it is
possible that Wesley did so also. That sounds logical to me.
>>FMAJ: That's a poor argument.
DNAunion: No it isn't. It would be a poor argument if I were actually
claiming that Elseberry was wrong, but I am not.
>>FMAJ: Of course it is possible that Wesley made an incorrect
representation but so far you have not shown this to be the case. And if I
understand your 'argument' you will not do this either.
DNAunion: FMAJ might just be getting it - and it only took telling him
explicitly about 6 times, and indirectly about another half dozen times.
Amazing.
>>FMAJ: Why not address the arguments?
>> DNAunion: There's that unwillingness of yours to accept others'
statements, shining through again. Hey, numbskull, pay attention and learn.
It doesn't matter how many times you ask me, I have stated that it is not up
to me to resolve the issue - that is between Elseberry and Dembski. I do not
claim to be a "Dembski-ologist".
>>FMAJ: Nice ad hominem. But your inability to support your assertions are
duely noted.
DNAunion: As is your continuing inability to understand very simple
sentences even when repeated to you numerous times. I think I would rather
be temporarily rude than permanently ….
>>DNAunion: Then there is always the possibility that Demsbki misspoke. What
if Dembski omitted something that made a difference, or added something he
didn't intend to, or was ambiguous on something, etc. His writings may not be
an accurate reflection of his own EF!?! Or what if Dembski has revised his EF
since (I have seen a couple versions of it myself).
>>FMAJ: Show that Wesley's argument is wrong or that Dembski misspoke.
>> DNAunion: Make me.
>>FMAJ: Not necessary. Your inability to support your own assertions are
duely noted.
DNAunion: I have supported my assertion - Elseberry *could be* wrong: heck,
even you admitted that a few exchanges above!!
> >FMAJ: So far you are merely speculating.
>> DNAunion: What is wrong with mere speculation? After all, that is the very
foundation of OOL research! What's more, I make it clear that I am
speculating and not stating things as fact. You should try it sometime.
>>FMAJ: Why? I like to support my arguments.
DNAunion: Great! I'm still waiting for your support of a purely-natural
origin of life on Earth. I am only asking you to do something you just said
you LIKE to do, so you will surely be eager to provide me with the details.
Right?
[…]
>>FMAJ: But you can suggest that there is a possibility that Wesley is wrong
though you will not attempt showing that this is the case.
DNAunion: Yep, because I have been open about my tentative and ill-informed
position that Elseberry *could be* wrong.
>>DNAunion: … and that FMAJ and others should make a clear distinction
between what you concluded, and what Dembski states/believes. That is, if
they quote YOUR material, then they should attribute the conclusions and
beliefs to YOU, not Dembski.
>>FMAJ: I did not attribute the conclusions to Dembski dear.
>> DNAunion: I am a man - please don't call me *dear* if you too are a man -
I don't appreciate homosexual advances.
>>FMAJ: Oh dear....
DNAunion: Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references to me as
"Dear" *after* I told him I found his doing so offensive: which he took as a
cue to *INCREASE* his use of the term. Nothing like trying one's best to
offend and/or irritate the opponent (but since FMAJ is not an IDist, his
offenses are allowed by the majority here).
[…]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 06:20:45 EDT